Thoughts from an ID Critic: You're all IDIOTIC LIARS!
by MikeGeneHere are the comments of BobC, a recent member of Telic Thouights who was lashing out at me.
Tell me why invoking magic is not idiotic. That's what Intelligent Design is, a belief in a magic man. Some liars don't want to talk about who the Designer is, but everyone knows the Designer is a supernatural magician.
There's a big business in this country called "Lying for Jesus". Their biggest lie is their pathetic attempts to disguise god-did-it to look like science. They aren't fooling anyone. Every sane biologist in the world knows Intelligent Design is childish supernatural garbage.
The only thing the Disco Institute has discovered is the fine art of constant lying. I noticed the only people who believe their crap is the holy rollers who will believe any nonsense that justifies their childish beliefs in magic.
There is no need to attack BobC, as he is probably just parroting the memes he has absorbed. Dime-a-dozen. But it is worth the time to remember that BobC, and his perceptions, are very common among the critics of ID, the same people who posture as "pro-reason" and "pro-science" judges. This is one reason I keep reminding people about the stereotypes that exist and, more importantly, the implications of those stereotypes.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Some pro-reason people seem to forget that reasoning itself is a result of intelligence. By equating intelligence with magic and lies, they are undermining their own stand.
Comment by pl0bs — November 3, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
pl0bs wrote:
pl0bs,
Judging from his comment, I don't think BobC is equating intelligence with magic and lies. I think he's equating supernatural intelligence with magic and lies.
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Keiths:
Almost but not quite. He was equating a belief in the existence of a supernatural intelligence as being both magic and a lie. When you accuse another of lying you need postive proof to sustain what amounts to an attack on one's integrity. The guy is a parrot.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
I agree that my comment should be modified, but not for the reasons you stated.
It's not the belief that BobC regards as magic, it's the "magic man" (i.e. God). As he says, "That's what Intelligent Design is, a belief in a magic man."
The lies he's referring to are attempts to hide the identity of the designer: "Some liars don't want to talk about who the Designer is, but everyone knows the Designer is a supernatural magician."
So in place of
… I would now write:
And remember, Bradford, even you conceded that a designer capable of fine-tuning the universe would have to be God.
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Do you agree with him?
What are the attempts to hide the identity of the designer? If myself (a catholic) and a deist were to both be in agreement that the evidence supported the existence of something beyond the natural - should the deist fault me if I stated the evidence wasn't enough to support the notion of God as Catholicism believes God to be?
Keiths, am I a liar if I said that the evidence supports the existence of an Intelligent Designer… but certainly not enough to conclude that that Designer was 1 of 3, and that one member of that Trinity came to earth and was born of a virgin mother?
How are these lies?
You're arguing over definitions. Intelligent Designer/ God. It's not an issue of whether or not one wants to call it an Intelligent Designer or God, it's an issue of whether this is enough to conclude the God of Christianity. You should know this.
Comment by Doug — November 3, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Does it matter? If materialism is correct then everything is the result of nonrational forces. Everything from those vestigial organs all the way to the brain (which, in time, might just end up on that list of organs that served some functional purpose but are no longer of use).
Whether you're talking about 'supernatural intelligence' or just 'intelligence', why place reason on such a high pedestal?
Comment by Doug — November 3, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Keiths:
Glad you responded to the comment because it illustrates the problems critics have. It is Bob's personal opinion that ID is "a belief in a magic man." Scientific experiments are unable to unequivocably rule God in or out. But beyond that ID does not need to establish the existence of God. It needs to gather data supporting purposefulness and/or intelligent causality. As for the lies you should know better as I am on record as having stated a belief in God. That, however, is not my scientific position. I cannot cite supporting data for the supernatural but I can for natural phenomenon like purpose and intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
http://comics.com/comics/monty...
The distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is itself an artifact of physical theory: in practice we define 'supernatural' as 'stuff science can't explain'.
For instance, if one day some scientist discovered an 'ectoplasmic dimension' in which ghosts resided, and a method for reliably observing it, then ghosts would cease to be considered supernatural as the borders of what we consider 'natural' expanded. Conversely, to someone operating out of an earlier Cartesian or Newtonian framework of physical theory, the behavior contemporary scientists ascribe to quanta would seem blatantly magical.
To say of anything that 'it can't be part of science because it's supernatural' is effectively to say that 'it can't be part of science because it can't be part of science.' That is, a blatant tautology.
As an aside, note the classic atheistic bait-and-switch that can go on around this issue:
'Science cannot point to God because God is "supernatural"'
'Do you believe in God?'
'No, because science does not point to God.'
Comment by BenK — November 3, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
BenK
There was a time not long ago when crtiques of God would include the criticism about God existing outside the universe. Now we have a many universes concept. Science is catching up with theology.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
BenK,
Glad to hear someone else pointing this out. It is, as keiths says, my little pet issue.
Bradford,
I never fail to get a kick out of that one, for exactly those reasons.
Comment by nullasalus — November 3, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
keiths to Bradford:
In order to "hide" the identity of the designer, one would have to know the identity of the designer. What one believes about the identity of the designer does not constitute actual knowledge pertinent to the science in question. Yet our fly-by insult-thrower says "everybody knows" the identity of this Designer (capital d). IOW, BobC claims to KNOW who the Designer is, and claims we all KNOW too.
BobC didn't say the Designer was "God" (capital g), he said "supernatural magician." From that description BobC could be asserting that the Designer is the ghost of Harry Houdini.
Now, a designer capable of fine-tuning a universe would certainly have to qualify as a god (small g) from our point of view, but that doesn't identify that god as Zeus or Odin or Ahura Mazda or Vishnu or Ra or even Jehovah.
Still, there are other possibilities that belie the assertion that "everybody knows" the identity of the designer. It might be a kid named Oorv who exists in 22 dimensions of space and 3 dimensions of time, and our 4 space-time dimensions are his science project this semester (all held in a crystal sphere no bigger to him than a baseball).
It might be a master musician with no name who exists in Uber-Brane and all universes are effects of vibrational harmonics arising through his unimaginable instrument.
Or it could be that our universe is the only universe, and our dimensions the only dimensions (in creation), and self-organizing consciousness is a fundamental parameter of its existence which all things manifest by simple virtue of their manifestation.
Or maybe it's just life that is intelligently designed. And the designer of life might be life itself.
So no, "everybody" doesn't know. Individuals have beliefs, and others think there are a number of possibilities. BobC is ignorant, and dishonest enough to lie about what he doesn't know. Why defend that?
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Joy:
Joy makes a point that Mike has made before. IDists come in all shapes and sizes and they do not share uniform metaphysical beliefs. What they do share is open ended curiosity about the universe and a willingness to explore new ideas and as the story line goes- go beyond where no man has gone before.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
That pretty much settles it - well said Joy! I think BobC is simply angry, and betrays the very principles he wishes us to embrace.
I used to be like him, until I realized the inanity of my views and this forum helped me see through my previously recalcitrant views.
Comment by dimasok — November 3, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 5:12 am
There are many phenomenona that scientists cannot currently explain e.g. the origin of life. But scientists don't therefore believe the origin of life is supernatural. They just accept it as unexplained.
The term supernatural applies to the supposed cause of the unexplained. Typically, when someone seeks to explain the unexplained by proposing an agent (usually a somewhat human-like mind) with vague powers that are not constrained by generally accepted science and everyday experience.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 4, 2007 @ 5:12 am
November 4th, 2007 at 7:12 am
"Not constrained by generally accepted science."
This is, for all practical purposes, the definition of the word 'supernatural.' So to say "An intelligent designer would be beyond the constraints of science because an intelligent designer would be supernatural" is precisely to say 'An intelligent designer would be beyond the constraints of science because an intelligent designer would be beyond the constraints of science;' i.e. a raving tautology.
To put it another way: We define 'natural' and 'supernatural' in terms of contemporary science. We therefore cannot define 'science' in terms of what we think is 'natural' or 'supernatural'.
Comment by BenK — November 4, 2007 @ 7:12 am
November 4th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Benk
I wrote:
For some you chose to omit an agent and everyday experience. On consideration I would change my sentence to "vague powers that are not constrained by any experience of what is possible". For example, in the 14th century the cause of the blck death was unexplained. Consider two proposed explanations:
It is the result of a witch's curse.
It is the result of drinking bad water.
Both explanations we now know to be wrong but I think we would all accept that the first is a supernatural explanation and the second is not. Why? The first explanation combines a mind with virtually unlimited powers. The second does not involve any mind and is a testable mechanism (at least in theory). The difference between the two is not defined by the science of the time.
Supernatural explanations are not defined by contemporary science. They are free of any constraints of current or future science.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 4, 2007 @ 7:42 am
November 4th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Keiths attempts to decipher the meaning of BobC's rant:
BobC's mind is conditioned to hear "˜God/religion' when "˜ID' is spoken or written. If Keiths' interpretation is correct, this leads BobC to think he can decipher what other people "have in mind." In other words, BobC mimics a psychic. Yet in reality, BobC would simply be relying on projection and stereotype. His mind hears "˜God' when "˜ID' is spoken/written, so he projects this on others. He can then support this perception with stereotype, as there are plenty of examples that would prop up confirmation bias.
In other word, BobC believes he knows what other people are "secretly" thinking and condemns them as LIARS for not agreeing with his perceptions of the world. It truly is a primitive form of thinking.
See Incomplete Penetrance and the Complexity of Beliefand Lies, lies, and more lies
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2007 @ 8:48 am
November 4th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Well, 'everyday experience' is an obvious furphy: scientists routinely invoke phenomena beyond or even contrary to everyday experience. I've not, and I can't imagine many people have, ever experience anything like quanta (at a macroscopic level), or time dilation due to speed, or space inside a black hole. Ditto for 'experience of what is possible'. I know I've never experienced something being in multiple places at the same time, but apparently that's what quanta do. According to contemporary physics the universe is downright weird.
As for the 'agent' bit, this starts to sound awfully ad hoc, like the definition is being specifically tailored as a weapon against ID. Excluding intelligent agency on the grounds that science must exclude intelligent agency? Hmm…
I can't help imagine that if, one day, a whole bunch of witches and warlocks came out of the closet and announced to the rest of us poor muggles that Harry Potter and the whole Hogwarts bit was all true, we'd see courses in Thaumaturgy taking their place next to physics and law at our universities.
As for testability - a given proposition is only testable within the context of a paradigm for testing it. For example, we might test the theory that the universe is expanding by measuring starlight for red shift - but to observe red shift we must already have an idea about what stars ought to be like; that is, the proposition 'The universe is expanding' is only testable if we already have quantum theory (and practical experience of spectroscopy) under our belt.
That is, the 'testability' of a theory is not inherent to the theory itself, but depends upon the relationship between that theory and the currently accepted theory of the time. If philosophy of science tells us anything it tells us that ideas do not and cannot exist in isolation.
Comment by BenK — November 4, 2007 @ 9:25 am
November 4th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Mark Frank:
In a nutshell this shows the faulty thinking of ID critics. In the above example the first explanation is taken by one who rejects seeking data related to the problem and drawing inferences from it that become part of a cause and effect logical explanation structure. Instead he opts for a fanciful explanation that is independent of data. The critic then says this is what IDists do.
But even a casual acquaintance with the specifics of ID is enough to dispel this persistent error in thinking. Front loading is a prominent position espoused at TT. Yet rather than being independent of data it is data dependent. In contrast to the one who rejects a data seeking approach to resolve science's mysteries, IDists seek data in support of their logically constructed explanations. To continue to espouse cliches and use them to attack ID in the face of experiences, that show the difference between IDists and the witch advocate in the above example, calls into question the integrity of critics.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2007 @ 11:04 am
November 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
If intelligence (the ability to make voluntary, subjective judgments) exists, it is not supernatural. Our own ability to make free choices is not supernatural. Nor is the same ability (to a lesser degree) in other creatures supernatural. Some degree of observable, purposeful response is what distinguishes life from inanimate matter. The fact that purposeful intent does not take up space and can be neither measured nor predicted (except statistically) not make it supernatural.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — November 4, 2007 @ 11:21 am
November 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
dimasok:
It's really nice to hear that not all critics are faith-invested in their stereotypes, and that there may be the occasional critic who is capable of honestly examining his preconceived notions.
Biological knowledge is of immense potential value to us all. Some of us believe it's important to challenge biology's current sociopolitical corruption. You demonstrate that there is hope this can eventually be successful. Thanks!
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Hi dimasok,
What you demonstrate is an ability to think for yourself. This is in striking contrast to the group-think that is common among so many. Besides, I think the allure of group-think is great when it comes to topics like ID. By bashing ID, the critic gets to be part of the tribe that postures as "pro-science," "pro-reason," and "pro-enlightenment." It's easy to be an ID critic. It takes a bit of intellectual courage to resist this social framing and think for yourself.
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Thx Joy & Mikegene! You two played a huge role in me transforming into what I am now and your fascinating posts left me speechless once I really attempted to look into them and think for myself what they really meant instead of dismissing everything as hogwash as I used to do so many times on so many forums in the past.
I do feel that I can finally think for myself separately from the group-approach you mentioned and you know what, even though I have many detractors, it feels great to be confident that you're not arguing in vain, that there indeed is a reason for why I think the way I do now and that I can argue in the favor of those views without offending anyone or being offended.
Thanks guys
Comment by dimasok — November 4, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I totally agree with Bob on this. Why should the Darwinists be allowed to invoke magic works like "chance" and "time" to solve any problem sans evidence ?
Agent causation is a well understood idea that is regularly invoked in all sorts of field and is perfectly reasonable and justified.
Good on bob for calling those invoking magic to task.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 7, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hey Keith in reality is doesn't work like that. Either agent causation is reasonable or it is, to use bob's terminology, "magic and lies". I don't mind which way people want to go on that score, but the sort of special pleading you are advocating here is a logical fallacy.
And I think Plantinga decisively showed the fundamental flaw in bob's rejection of agent causation and the problems with the conjunction of naturalism and evolution.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 7, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Hey sciphishow, I thought you might like these quotes from the Finnish school shooter. Some more ammo for your rambling posts:
[from cnn.com]
cheers mate
Comment by Raevmo — November 7, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Raevmo:
Mind explaining the relevance of this quote in this thread? Seems to me you are the one rambling a bit here.
Comment by Jean — November 7, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Jean:
It's self-explanatory if you think really hard.
Comment by Raevmo — November 7, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Raevmo is just defending his friend.
But in regards to your quote; it's irrelevant. Are you trying to show that agent causation is not reasonable because one kid has a twisted view on reality? Views can only be twisted when we have an understanding of a sound view - one that both you and I seem to be in agreement of, since neither of us applaud the young Finns actions.
Comment by Doug — November 7, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Doug:
Um, what friend of mine would that be? I hope you don't mean the finnish shooter.
But of course I admit that the quote is quite irrelevant to this thread. I just wanted to help out thesciphishow, who is always so eager to point out the evil consequences of darwinism.
Comment by Raevmo — November 7, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Raevmo:
I wrote:
Raevmo retorted:
Raevmo then says to Doug:
LOL! Guess the one needing some hard thinking is you if you can't spot the inconsistency here.
Comment by Jean — November 7, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Jean:
In your defense, I didn't expect a lawyer to be able to think hard enough. But really, something can be self-explanatory and irrelevant at the same time. Think about it some more.
Comment by Raevmo — November 7, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I'm not sure where you get that idea from. All I want to see is people thinking carefully and not discarding their positions when it doesn't suit them. Consistency is important. If you don't like the implications of your views then change your views, don't be double minded.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 7, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
the sciphishow:
I am quite sure I got it from your previous posts.
Your problem is that you can't discriminate between scientific views and moral views. You can't reject a scientific theory because you don't like how people will use it in a non-scientific context, and that's exactly what you're doing.
Comment by Raevmo — November 7, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Ok then. English not your first language ? I'll try to be clearing in future.
Sure I can, what I take exception too is others pretending that ideas don't have implications when they don't like them. Either take your ideas seriously or admit you don't care about truth. That would be the credo I advocate. Pity people like Dawkins and other don't.
I'm not rejecting anything for reasons like that. I reject materialist propaganda because it can't make good on its claims. The moral implications of it are secondary.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 7, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Is that all you got?
Which is of course no answer to the question I asked. I asked why it was relevant to this thread, you answered with poop.
Comment by Jean — November 8, 2007 @ 5:21 am
November 9th, 2007 at 7:55 am
So perhaps some proponents of ID believe in God. Perhaps some believe in the dreaded tedious FSM. Perhaps some believe in pixies. But from a scientific point of view, I can't honestly see that it makes any difference. The presuppositions of the people presenting an argument are irrelevant, from a scientific point of view: what's relevant is the quality of the evidence in support of the argument. You can then choose to interpret the evidence as you wish. The frustration for me is that what I want to see, from a scientific point of view, is presentation of the evidence. I will draw my own conclusions. It is soooooo annoying when for philosophical/religious/political reasons, certain lines of scientific exploration are closed down. The implication that we can only know the truth if it happens to fit in with philosophical materialism is absurd.
Behe's and Gonzalez's work (for example) is not "unscientific" because of their presuppositions. It is open to discussion, falsification and verification as much as Adami's and Matzke's. And a darn sight more so than Dawkins'. So I just wish opponents of ID would stop trying to close down the discussion because it's religious, and instead focus on trying to refute it on scientific grounds. Then we might actually start to learn something.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — November 9, 2007 @ 7:55 am